open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Losses, Gains, Loans, Scams, & Getting Out ... A Discussion Thread
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Phelan Votronski
Posted - 2011.09.03 16:34:00 - [31]
 

High risk ventures aside (which most are not) there is literally no real reason for a business to fail in eve. If someone suggests otherwise you know not to invest in him (hint: OP).

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.03 16:45:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: RAW23
The only reason I don't steal in real life is because I worry what people would think about me.

I am also deterred from killing puppies for the same ego-driven reasons.


Pretty weak considering your available faculties.

You're putting yourself in a position where you get to be moral for its own sake. You're not resisting temptation that is thrust upon you because its the right thing to do, rather you're seeking out temptation to demonstrate your morality and revel in the attention and authority this morality gives you.

Now you and a few flunkies get to be lords of md. It obviously turns your crank, which is fine in itself. However, you also create a false environment that keeps this broken institution alive when it should be long dead.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.03 16:50:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Elise DarkStar
Originally by: RAW23
The only reason I don't steal in real life is because I worry what people would think about me.

I am also deterred from killing puppies for the same ego-driven reasons.


Pretty weak considering your available faculties.

You're putting yourself in a position where you get to be moral for its own sake. You're not resisting temptation that is thrust upon you because its the right thing to do, rather you're seeking out temptation to demonstrate your morality and revel in the attention and authority this morality gives you.

Now you and a few flunkies get to be lords of md. It obviously turns your crank, which is fine in itself. However, you also create a false environment that keeps this broken institution alive when it should be long dead.



I didn't think your comments were really sufficiently credible to warrant a serious answer. Indeed, I'm surprised you actually take them seriously yourself. I'll compose a more serious answer later this evening when I have time.

Tom Hagen
Posted - 2011.09.03 16:51:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Elise DarkStar
You're putting yourself in a position where you get to be moral for its own sake.
(...)

However, you also create a false environment that keeps this broken institution alive when it should be long dead.



This statement I just love. Laughing
First flaming RAW and his morals. Then a hilarious statement of a subjective nature, uttered as an absolute truth, "this broken institution when it should be long dead"

Now, who's putting herself on high horses I wonder Smile

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.03 16:53:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Tom Hagen
This statement I just love. Laughing
First flaming RAW and his morals. Then a hilarious statement of a subjective nature, uttered as an absolute truth, "this broken institution when it should be long dead"

Now, who's putting herself on high horses I wonder Smile


Shush, adults are talking.

Tom Hagen
Posted - 2011.09.03 16:57:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Elise DarkStar

Shush, adults are talking.


Yeah, I know.

I was having a really interesting adult conversation without lame back-stabbing with IceFyre18 - but then you came along and decided to bring adolescent hormons in and I figured I'd reply as if you were an adult...

Stealing Honest
Stealing Honest Speculation Group LLC
Posted - 2011.09.03 17:06:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Phelan Votronski
High risk ventures aside (which most are not) there is literally no real reason for a business to fail in eve. If someone suggests otherwise you know not to invest in him (hint: OP).



This is a valid opinion, as im sure many others believe the same.

However yes i do think situations arise even in the most standard or offerings. Sometimes they are medical such as Shar's, or a turning market, or a key member leaving, or a mistake in placing a decimal point as was almost my downfall blunder last month.


SH

Phelan Votronski
Posted - 2011.09.03 17:24:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Stealing Honest

However yes i do think situations arise even in the most standard or offerings. Sometimes they are medical such as Shar's,



Fair enough though I wouldn't file that under failed business. Speaking generally here in such a case virtually no isk should be lost and it's merely a question of an early shutdown.

I don't particularly remember anyone ever getting a hard time for leaving early but giving the money back.

Originally by: Stealing Honest

or a turning market,



I assume with some CCP balancing in the wrong moment that one could happen to everyone. It would probably still be kind of a "don't put all your eggs in one basket" thing.

Originally by: Stealing Honest
or a key member leaving,


Well that's just an early shutdown like before.

Originally by: Stealing Honest

or a mistake in placing a decimal point as was almost my downfall blunder last month.



We're all humans so it's not out of the question. To be fair though that would easily justify some mockery.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.03 17:55:00 - [39]
 

@Elise

The problem I have with your position is that everything you say follows from your assumption that there are no good reasons to either invest or seek investment other than RP or preparing for a scam. Your personal criticisms of me are then based on the view that not only is this the case but that I also really believe this to be the case but act as if it isn't. So, there are two levels on which to engage with this: 1) is it the case that there is, in fact, no good reason to get involved in investing? and 2) is it possible for someone to credibly think otherwise even if they are wrong? If the answer to the first question is no, and there are good reasons for continuing to support investment through MD, then I presume that you would accept that your other criticisms are invalid as there would be perfectly reasonable, non-ego driven reasons for getting involved in investing (on either side of the fence). And if the answer to the second question is yes then someone could also have valid reasons beyond ego-stroking for getting involved, even if those reasons were ultimately shown to be based on false assumptions (if these assumptions are shown to be false then the person should change and adopt an anti-investment position such as your own).

So, if there is a good case to be made for supporting some form of MD investing then I take it that your comments will no longer apply. If I have misunderstood the fundamental basis for your criticisms then please let me know where I'm going wrong.

Now, the reason I didn't reply seriously to your first post is because I have previously addressed the question of whether there is a case for investing in an attempt to respond to your comments on this issue before. The case I presented was evidentially grounded on a sample of c. 90 investments over a one year period and I gathered that data precisely because I wanted to determine if it was possible to construct financially beneficial investment strategies despite the regular occurrence of large scams. Unfortunately, when I presented this argument in response to your comments in the past you did not engage with it or respond to it at all but did continue making the same claims in other threads, including this one. So, I apologise for my flippant response but I assumed that your primary interest was in trolling over this issue rather than actually discussing it (you have made a number of posts over the last year stating your new preference for trolling :-)).

Unfortunately, I can't find the post on eve search (not the most recent and fullest one anyway) so I'll have to type it up again. But before I spend the time doing that, can you confirm that I have understood the grounding for your position properly - tl;dr that there are no good financial reasons to invest via MD - and that you would accept that you would need to revise your position if I could show you that there are good reasons beyond RP and ego-boosting?

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.09.03 18:07:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: RAW23
@Elise

The problem I have with your position is that everything you say follows from your assumption that there are no good reasons to either invest or seek investment other than RP or preparing for a scam. Your personal criticisms of me are then based on the view that not only is this the case but that I also really believe this to be the case but act as if it isn't.


Basically the world is pushed ahead by constructive, sometimes imprudent, positive minded people. They will smash their face but will keep going on and in the end the result is a better world.

The others act as cynical brake, do call for the wolf all the time and don't build anything or even actively work to ruin what's good and jade other people's mentality.


It's often quite easy to see who belongs to the first group and who does to the second.

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.03 19:52:00 - [41]
 

@Raw

1) I know which data you are discussing. I have addressed it before in short suggesting that it wasn't a proper representation of the core issue, so I will expand on that now.

I believe your argument is something along the lines of "if you invested in everything that launched unproportionally to the size of the offer, then you will have come out with a slight profit after 12 months". Feel free to correct any of that. Unfortunately this is a weak argument involving cherry-picked facts without a single explanation of why this very specific data point is the appropriate measure of the success or failure of the institution of public-lending in terms of making ISK.

The "quality" of investing as a neutral (with no consideration of enjoyment) means of making ISK comes down to the risk, return, capital absorption, and time invested, just like any other means from mining to scamming. I respect that these are difficult to quantify and I understand the desire for hard facts and numbers, but forming an argument from the only available data is a weak form of argumentation called scientism: "This argument has numbers. Therefore it is superior to arguments without numbers".

I invite people to make arguments for or against investing along the proper lines. I can't be bothered, though I will gladly read and contribute to other people's attempts. I am extremely confident that for the vast majority of people by risk, reward, and effort, investing is a terrible way to make money, though I am wide open to people attempting to prove me wrong. Please do. There may be a case made for capital absorption for the extremely rich, though that would take a significant amount of work, so I doubt anyone will even attempt it.

If people enjoy playing the "investing game", more power to them.

2) My criticism of the few honest people is that they do it in spite of the temptation of scamming for its own sake because it gives them a feeling of "specialness" and being part of a "club". This in itself is fine, but by doing this they lend a false air of legitimacy which perverts the calculations of "investors" (see your use of the seemingly convincing but ultimately intellectually bankrupt data point argument). So through feeding you egos, you are misinforming people of the true state of affairs, leading them to make poor choices.

Again, if people enjoy playing the "investing game", more power to them, as long as they aren't being unduly swayed by a vocal community of presently-legitimate people.

3) I would never suggest that you are consciously deceiving others contrary to your inward beliefs. I assume you want it to be true because you've attained a position of authority and respect within the community. You may find this suggestion even more insulting than your original assumption of what I was implying, but I console myself that you are a big boy and are open to such criticisms as a voluntary public figure.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.03 21:13:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 03/09/2011 21:23:19

Originally by: Elise DarkStar
@Raw

1) I know which data you are discussing. I have addressed it before in short suggesting that it wasn't a proper representation of the core issue, so I will expand on that now.

I believe your argument is something along the lines of "if you invested in everything that launched unproportionally to the size of the offer, then you will have come out with a slight profit after 12 months". Feel free to correct any of that. Unfortunately this is a weak argument involving cherry-picked facts without a single explanation of why this very specific data point is the appropriate measure of the success or failure of the institution of public-lending in terms of making ISK.


I think this is a rather unfair representation of the position I put forward. It needs to be borne in mind that this is a response to a claim put forward by yourself (and others) that there is no good financial reason to invest in MD offerings. This claim is a very general one and is not, itself, well defined. A general claim to the effect that investing in MD offerings is a financially pointless activity requires only a single counter-example to refute it. If it can be shown that there are (most likely I make no claim that my one year set of data should be taken as definitive) strategies according to which one can successfully make isk for very little effort then the general claim that investing is pointless needs, at the least, to be reformulated into a more precise criticism. If you have such a criticism then it will need to be addressed but I have not yet seen what it is. The problem here is that I don't think you have yet provided a well articulated argument against investing. You frequently assert the claim but if you want a more precise response you will need to provide a more precise attack, since the general one does not work. Perhaps the way forwards is to provide your definition of success or failure but so far I have engaged with it on the basis of whether an individual can make isk by pursuing a rational strategy such that it is a successful institution if one can reasonably expect to make money off it by pursuing a reasoned line of action. You can hardly expect me to provide a specific response to a non-specific argument and I think, so far, a non-general claim against investing has not been forthcoming.

Quote:

The "quality" of investing as a neutral (with no consideration of enjoyment) means of making ISK comes down to the risk, return, capital absorption, and time invested, just like any other means from mining to scamming. I respect that these are difficult to quantify and I understand the desire for hard facts and numbers, but forming an argument from the only available data is a weak form of argumentation called scientism: "This argument has numbers. Therefore it is superior to arguments without numbers".



I don't think the label of scientism is appropriate here. As I understand your case it is, precisely, a case about numbers. A response in terms of numbers is, then, what is needed and a response on the basis of a limited set of data is preferable to a response based purely on intuition that does not provide any evidence at all. This is not a case of claiming that the numbers prove x about human behaviour or ethics or some such where the value of a numerical analysis is at issue. Rather, there is an assumption about numbers implicit in the criticism itself. To then criticise an evidence based response for being based on numbers does not seem legitimate.

cont.

Edit - I would want to modify my comments here about your case being a case about numbers if it turned out that your main focus was a social one.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.03 21:16:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 03/09/2011 21:26:10
Edited by: RAW23 on 03/09/2011 21:23:54
Quote:

I invite people to make arguments for or against investing along the proper lines. I can't be bothered, though I will gladly read and contribute to other people's attempts. I am extremely confident that for the vast majority of people by risk, reward, and effort, investing is a terrible way to make money, though I am wide open to people attempting to prove me wrong. Please do. There may be a case made for capital absorption for the extremely rich, though that would take a significant amount of work, so I doubt anyone will even attempt it.

If people enjoy playing the "investing game", more power to them.



It may well be the case that the majority of people will lose money or will get a poor isk return for the effort involved if they invest on the basis of poorly reasoned assumptions. But as far as I'm concerned this is not a good reason to criticise the idea of investments in general. If there are rational strategies available that are simply not pursued then there is a failure of rationality in the pursuit of investments. This does not mean that investments themselves are a problem, although I accept that from a social perspective one could argue that investment opportunities represent a 'harm' to society because most of the people that partake fail to partake in a rational manner. But I am not of the opinion that we should seek to do away with the whole field simply to protect people from their own stupidity.


Quote:

2) My criticism of the few honest people is that they do it in spite of the temptation of scamming for its own sake because it gives them a feeling of "specialness" and being part of a "club". This in itself is fine, but by doing this they lend a false air of legitimacy which perverts the calculations of "investors" (see your use of the seemingly convincing but ultimately intellectually bankrupt data point argument). So through feeding you egos, you are misinforming people of the true state of affairs, leading them to make poor choices.

Again, if people enjoy playing the "investing game", more power to them, as long as they aren't being unduly swayed by a vocal community of presently-legitimate people.



This is based on a whole range of assumptions about peoples' motivations. As it stands it does not make a strong point because it does not substantiate these assumptions. I get the feeling here that your concerns are with a kind of societal good whereby people need to be protected from themselves and I can apprecaite that position despite not sympathising with it. But you conflate this issue with a bunch of unfounded claims about ego-feeding that cannot be assumed to apply universally if you accept that at least one person can make a good go of investing. Wouldn't you accept that it may well be the case that I think I can make isk through investing and I don't care sufficiently about other people failing to hobble myself? Supporting an area of gameplay that is beneficial to me is not an act of ego-stroking but a way of making isk that would be unavailable if I pursued a more socially conscious approach. This is not to say that I don't have any social conscience, just that as a libertarian I feel that I am free to help people out with advice without also feeling obliged to constrain my own behaviour so as to protect those who don't want to follow said very basic advice. MDers could sink another trillion isk into a lost cause tomorrow and I would try to warn them off it. But I don't believe I am obliged to not invest in those offerings I am happy with just to help deter morons from investing in offerings I think are too dangerous.


RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.03 21:19:00 - [44]
 

Quote:

3) I would never suggest that you are consciously deceiving others contrary to your inward beliefs. I assume you want it to be true because you've attained a position of authority and respect within the community. You may find this suggestion even more insulting than your original assumption of what I was implying, but I console myself that you are a big boy and are open to such criticisms as a voluntary public figure.


I can understand the force of this claim in certain circumstances and have had plenty of experience of people with delusional attachments to power in the real world (myself included as a teenager). However, your argument here runs the very siginifcant risk of being unfalsifiable. You will, I think, want to claim that anyone who advances the position I advance does so because they want to maintain a social position but this already presumes that no one can reasonably advance such a position and that remains to be demonstrated.

On the other hand, you might think it's just me. But you have been around this forum since I started and are one of the few people to be able to make a judgement about whether my posting has changed significantly since becoming a 'public figure'. I would like to know if you do indeed think that I post in a different way and with a different agenda now than when I started two years ago. My own assessment is that the change is pretty minimal, so if I am to understand this as a critique of my own posting in particular, rather than a generalised attack on anyone who might advance the same arguments as I do, then I would appreciate it if you could direct me to some examples of my posting that you think stems from my new 'public figure' persona and that I would not have made when I first began posting on MD. My own memory of the early months is that I got into the same kinds of arguments as I do now and with greater frequency because I had more time available.

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.03 23:05:00 - [45]
 

Ok, I'm going to do my best here to keep things concentrated on the core issues to avoid the discussion splintering off excessively. If you feel that I am being excessively liberal with my narration of the issues, then please say so, and I will try to adjust.

Originally by: RAW23
I don't think the label of scientism is appropriate here...A response in terms of numbers is, then, what is needed and a response on the basis of a limited set of data is preferable to a response based purely on intuition that does not provide any evidence at all.


No, see that's exactly what I'm describing as scientism. Your argument is not properly constructed (a point I will return to), so your use of "evidence" is, in the end, absolutely and fundamentally meaningless.

Originally by: RAW23
You can hardly expect me to provide a specific response to a non-specific argument and I think, so far, a non-general claim against investing has not been forthcoming


No, but I can expect you to yourself make a proper evaluation of what would constitute a good argument for investing as a means of making money, which you have not done. I have already explained the proper approach to evaluating the merits of investing as a means of making money, though I have declined to undertake the evaluation myself because I can't be bothered to do it. However, it is all right there for someone to attempt using available evidence, though admittedly with a degree of assumptions and approximations. However, it would be a properly formulated argument, and numerical evidence would be a valid augmentation to whatever position the undertaker(s) of the task choose(s).

Originally by: RAW23
It may well be the case that the majority of people will lose money or will get a poor isk return for the effort involved...


I suggest that the subject of the quoted paragraph would be incorporated as part of the "effort" section of a proper evaluation. You could, for example, make decent generally-accepted approximations of how long it would take someone to become proficient at selecting a certain class of risk correctly, how long it would take to evaluate each potential investment, and so on. Regardless, it has nothing to do with societal goods from my perspective, and that is definitely not the direction my argument is taking with respect to the subject.

Ultimately it is up to the individual to make a mental model of the risks, rewards, and effort involved in investing for profit. I have provided the proper theoretical framework, and I invite anyone to contribute by filling in the blanks with evidence, approximations, and assumptions where they see fit to help others enhance their own decision-making ability with respect to the subject. As mentioned, my personal assumptions and approximations push investing well below many other money-making activities on an enjoyment neutral scale, and even lower when considering my own personal enjoyment of undertaking the various methods (though this probably pushes investing above mining rofl)

Originally by: RAW23
This is based on a whole range of assumptions about peoples' motivations.


Absolutely. When they invent the machine that scientifically demonstrates people's true intentions and motivations, I'll be the first to employ it. Until then we are forced to make these assumptions based on our own experiences. It is ultimately up to each reader to determine for himself if they believe my narrative, yours, or neither.

Originally by: RAW23
I can understand the force of this claim in certain circumstances...


Ultimately you're the only person who can answer this. I asked myself what motivation one would have to perpetuate what is to me a blatantly perverse community. Furthermore, what would make someone fail to see that "obvious" perversity and even campaign against people who suggest it is such.

The only answer I could come up with is power.

IceFyre S18
Zulu Labs
Zulu People
Posted - 2011.09.03 23:38:00 - [46]
 

Call me stupid, but I find very hard to read those walls of text.

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.03 23:44:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: IceFyre S18
Call me stupid, but I find very hard to read those walls of text.


Perfectly reasonable.

Sadly I was sacrificing depth and coherency for succinctness, and that's still only as small as I could make it.

IceFyre S18
Zulu Labs
Zulu People
Posted - 2011.09.03 23:47:00 - [48]
 

I guess what comes next is Raw quoting your lines, expanding the walls even further.

Tom Hagen
Posted - 2011.09.03 23:56:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Elise DarkStar

No, but I can expect you to yourself make a proper evaluation of what would constitute a good argument for investing as a means of making money, which you have not done. I have already explained the proper approach to evaluating the merits of investing as a means of making money, though I have declined to undertake the evaluation myself because I can't be bothered to do it.
(...)
Ultimately it is up to the individual to make a mental model of the risks, rewards, and effort involved in investing for profit.

I have provided the proper theoretical framework, and I invite anyone to contribute by filling in the blanks with evidence, approximations, and assumptions where they see fit to help others enhance their own decision-making ability with respect to the subject.


I have read through your veritable wall of text, and tried to condense it down to a digestible format in a non-intrusive way (which is what I have tried to do in the post above - please forgive me if I fail to maintain all the subtle nuances in the quote). I also wish to point out that as a non-native speaker, there might be parts of the argumentation below that is less clear than it would be in my native language.

What I find striking - and to be honest almost arrogant - is the fact that you seem to believe that the one-and-only framwork that is worthwhile to consider is that which you have defined yourself ("the proper approach to evaluating the merits of investing"). This creates an environment for discussion, where you allow yourself to disregard any argument that you disagree with simply because it does not fall within the theoretical framwork that you have defined. Then you admit that your own theoretical framwork is so complicated, that it is not worthwhile for yourself to spend time on filling. Last, you continue by transforming your subjective opinion into objective truths, as no one else is able to (in your opinion) provide a stringent enough model to prove your hypotheses wrong. Even the most consistent and stringent evaluation of bond success so far performed on the forums is discarded from your side as biased and lacking completeness.

Well. I've been thought, and built a very succesful career on the basis of using models to represent a simplified picture of reality, not by creating complete models that replicate reality. In fact, my learnings are that the most powerful models typically are those that allow them to be easily used and that give you a strong chance of being right.

Another remark, that is detatched from the topic as such: Accusing RAW of aspiring for power in these forums is hardly convincing, given the extreme use of domination techniques such as bullying, supremacy claims and intellectual snobbyism that you make good use of yourself - several shown in this thread. I find it unfortunate, since it alienates large parts of your audience unneccesarily instead of you trying to use strong argumentation techniques to convince.

Lastly, as I have not seen it, I would be interested to have a look at the enfabled "provided the proper theoretical framework". I would be interested to have a look at it, to get a better insight into your thoughts.

Brock Nelson
Posted - 2011.09.03 23:57:00 - [50]
 

Does people honestly still think my account was hacked?

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.03 23:57:00 - [51]
 

Raw is a very clear and detailed writer; I am more willing to hack and slash my way through an argument.

I invite him to narrate his version of the discourse, similar to what I have done, picking the key points and recombining them into something that's relevant to his core argument. However, I also don't place any unfair expectation on someone to change their writing style, nor should they feel compelled to try.

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.04 00:01:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Tom Hagen
stuff


Please describe another way to evaluate the claim besides comparing the 4 relevant factors.

What am I supposed to do when the only way to evaluate something is the only way?

Stibbins
Posted - 2011.09.04 00:37:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Stealing Honest
This is a discussion about offerings that don't go an planned. Some of these investee's mean well, and start well...but after a bit end up showing a loss.

This brings us to the problem.

We have seen from some higher profile offerings that claimed scam when in fact they were only starting to turn a loss, or saw a setback and didn't know how to get out...so pulled a runner.

The question is, how as a lending group can we as investors help clients end their offering once it sees a major setback, in a way that closes the offering without scam.

Discuss please.


SH


I think it would be an enormous boost to investor confidence if people stopped naming their ponzi alts names like "Stealing Honest".

Stibbins
Posted - 2011.09.04 00:42:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Luxi Daphiti
Edited by: Luxi Daphiti on 02/09/2011 20:02:41

Just an idea, but we could set a floor. i.e.: the investor could say "I will lend you x ISK, but if you lose more then y % of it, return what is remaining" - So it cuts the losses of the investor should things not go to plan.

I could, for instance, offer 1 Billion ISK under the guarantee that should things go wrong and the capital fall below, say, 900 Million (10%), it is sent back as it. Saving both from larger losses.

Although i'd lose 100 Million it is still better then losing the whole billion. On the same token i'd rather receive half my money back then none of it.



Congratulations, you've just invented credit derivatives. Nothing could possibly go wrong with credit derivatives now, could it?

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.09.04 00:54:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Elise DarkStar
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Basically the world is pushed ahead by constructive, sometimes imprudent, positive minded people. They will smash their face but will keep going on and in the end the result is a better world.

The others act as cynical brake, do call for the wolf all the time and don't build anything or even actively work to ruin what's good and jade other people's mentality.


It's often quite easy to see who belongs to the first group and who does to the second.


This is extremely amusing considering I have spent the last two years of my life working on theory that I believe in so strongly that I am willing to sacrifice significant consumption and career opportunities. The fact that you are invoking such deep-meaning and gross generalizations with respect to participation in an internet spaceships videogame market discussion subforum just demonstrates how absolutely ****ed in the head you are.

I don't even mean that as a trolling zinger. You are actually really ****ed in the head.


I also sacrificed 2 years of my life working on trading methods I believe in so strongly that I am earning a living thanks to them.
Yet you piss on whatever is not YOUR self approved world and indeed my classification in two categories is quite appropriate and describes your behavior.

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.04 01:00:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Yet you piss on whatever is not YOUR self approved world and indeed my classification in two categories is quite appropriate and describes your behavior.


No, I just **** on bull****. There is plenty that I respectfully disagree with or accept the intellectual authority of others, there's just not much reason to post about that.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.09.04 01:11:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Elise DarkStar
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Yet you piss on whatever is not YOUR self approved world and indeed my classification in two categories is quite appropriate and describes your behavior.


No, I just **** on bull****. There is plenty that I respectfully disagree with or accept the intellectual authority of others, there's just not much reason to post about that.


And of course you have divine rights to discern what's "intellectual authority" vs what you believe it's BS.

- "Hey that guy is living thanks to what he learned"

- "No, my blinders command me to classify it as BS".

That's the "respectfully" for you, eh?

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.04 01:17:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
And of course you have divine rights to discern what's "intellectual authority" vs what you believe it's BS.

- "Hey that guy is living thanks to what he learned"

- "No, my blinders command me to classify it as BS".

That's the "respectfully" for you, eh?


Sorry, who do you listen to when determining the intellectual authority of others? Other others? Others whose specialty is intellectual authorities?

ROFL

You get respect when you make coherent and respectful arguments. You don't. Therefore you get mockery. You're obviously very upset that I don't respect your intellectual authority on market voodoo. You should probably take a break for a bit.

Shar Tegral
Posted - 2011.09.04 01:22:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Elise DarkStar
The fact that you are invoking such deep-meaning and gross generalizations with respect to participation in an internet spaceships videogame market discussion subforum just demonstrates how absolutely ****ed in the head you are.
Barring the ad hominem, you don't want to really understand do you?

It is not the venue that is relevant. It is the honing of the mind. No matter what you are engaged in, vocation or avocation, a sharp mind wants to be exercised. Engaged and involved.

PS: I added "want to" after I typed as I'm sure you do understand.

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2011.09.04 01:29:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Brock Nelson
Does people honestly still think my account was hacked?


Well, I for one, was one of the aforementioned trolls who kept reminding everyone and their brother of your mission running habits.

I have never doubted your ability to blow smoke up peoples asses.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only